from the that-doesn't-sound-good dept

Politicians have been pushing for an anti-spyware law for quite some time -- mostly because it's the sort of thing likely to draw headlines that make the politicians look good. However, it's widely acknowledged that such laws aren't at all necessary. Anti-fraud laws can mostly take care of the problem cases out there -- and the market itself seems to have actually taken care of the worst offenders in the space. Plus, with such laws (witness CAN-SPAM's failure), they tend to do little to actually stop the activity, but more to define the rules by which companies can continue to do bad things without breaking the law.

So we've got a law that is unnecessary and wouldn't even stop the problem of spyware if it were a problem -- and opens up a backdoor to allow software companies to spy on users and remotely shut down their computers. But it may pass anyway because politicians want voters to think they voted against spyware.

from the the-battle-continues dept

With a growing number of ISPs using services from companies like Phorm and NebuAd to inject ads into your web browsing based on your surfing habits, anti-spyware companies are starting to take notice and debate whether or not they should start blocking some of these activities. While there's no downloaded software, these services all use cookies to track your surfing habits, and anti-spyware offerings could certainly step in and block those cookies or more proactively warn users that their surfing data is being used in this manner. Considering how hard Phorm has worked to shed the "spyware" label it had been given in a previous life, the company can't be too pleased to hear about this development. Of course, it's probably more concerned with questions being raised about whether or not its service is even legal.